What has become abundantly clear to more and more Americans nine years now after 9-11 is that the oft-reported "dumbing down" of America’s children obviously goes all the way through to our graduate programs at most of America’s historically revered Ivy League schools.
Both the former president, and Mr. Obama are the products of the Eastern educational system – and also the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices.
It appears the education that is now being taught and overseen by the American Bar Association consists of educating and training our youth in how to actually "legally" skirt around the Constitution, rather than abide by it in their "advice and counsel" roles anyway at least when advising those holding public office.
Who are actually holding public office themselves, and as such bound and sworn to abide by it.
Each and every Senator and Congressman have teams of lawyers that are paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, and apparently their jobs have been to advise and counsel those same legislators on how to formulate legislation consisting of massive amounts of pages and caveats, and clearly unconstitutional provisions at that (such as the provisions in this new health care deform on "fines" for Americans not buying the financial sectors insurance products), in order to stimulate the economies of the legal profession most of all.
It appears clear that their advice and counsel has taken a turn from "the LAW" (Constitution) to their industry’s economics with each piece of legislation now a potential stimulus for their profession (or industry, since the judicial branch appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate, while justice is now an afterthought, or those "speedy trial" provisions – our courts are so bogged up with a great many of those insurance lawsuits also, expanding taxpayers costs for our court system also progressively).
The mandatory auto insurance laws are a prime example, and have resulted in increased, not decreased, taxpayer costs for insurance defense suits, and it is the lawyers most of all that clean up even in those suits rather than the victims since their take has escalated on most suits to be 50% of the awarded total damages, rather than the 1/3 that was the norm under common law provisions.
And our courts due to costs of even a small claims civil suit, out of the reach of a good 80% of Americans at this point due to the court filing fees and junk fees attached to every single paper filed with those courts in any civil or criminal action.
It can now take literally years for the settlement of simple contract disputes and civil actions, and decades for criminal matters with the appeals and levels of courts now that are involved.
Not to mention jurisdictional issues, which is also missing in the reporting of this health care deform.
If the federal government is interjecting itself into legislation that is industry favoring, rather than its role as a regulator of commerce and these commercial insurers, than it would appear to me that this then complicates the "redress" afforded to Americans who pay for years their insurance premiums, but then are either denied coverages or who have a beef in just what those policies cover (as a supposed "contract") and what they do not.
Since most insurers are incorporated at the state, not federal, level, then does this mean that all suits brought by the public against their insurer will have to be filed in the more expensive federal courts, than their state courts (although the difference in costs between the two also progressively have become negligible).
It appears to me there are major jurisdictional questions on much of this legislation that is going to result in further huge taxpayer costs which haven’t been given any weight in just what the ultimate cost of this legislation will actually be.
With a public that is going to then be footing the bills for those unregulated premium increases, and then also those court and costs of suits fighting teams of defense lawyers who are being paid out of their premium dollars.
And these counselors it appears are attempting then more and more to also write legislation criminalizing those Americans under "terrorism" Acts who are becoming increasingly outraged by the goings on in Washington, since the dumbing down of Americans who haven’t been through our law schools and their propaganda have made the average citizen now more cognizant of "the LAW" than those that have paid literally tens of thousands of dollars in graduate study.
Today there was just such an article in the APP (American Propaganda Press) directed once again toward "homegrown" terrorists – using a press that continues to use terrorism also as its new reporting standards.
Since at last count, Congress had a less than 15% approval rating, does that make the remaining 85% of Americans outraged at their taxation levels, and legislation mostly aimed at increasing corporate America and the financial sector’s bottom lines now progressively, and engaging in war after war at the public’s expense in both blood and treasure for mostly foreign or global interests, then potential terrorist suspects?
I mean, how many agents would have to be hired to follow up on those that are now "anti-government" in this country, since the press fails to mention that many who are now vocalizing their outrage more and more are not at all "anti-government" simply "anti-unconstitutional government" or this government we now have at each and every level which has absolutely no similarity to that intended by those founders.
"Misrepresentatives" who are not representatives of their constituency at all due to also illegal campaign finance laws that have afforded out of district influence on candidates (and even out of country, ala AIG) and the entire election process itself – which has been hijacked by two "corporate" political parties.
Who also hire teams of lawyers in order to remain in power.
I’m sure this isn’t the type of education Mr. Jefferson had in mind, that is for certain.
If Mr. Bush is an example of what is now coming out of Yale, and Mr. Obama out of Harvard.
Seems it is more along the lines of British Rule of Law that has corrupted the curriculum progressively.
It appears that whether "progressive" or "neocon" those terms are simply the new politically correct terms for "Tory."